From owner-freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG Tue Oct 25 20:23:56 2011 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-current@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::34]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 394B8106564A; Tue, 25 Oct 2011 20:23:56 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from crodr001@gmail.com) Received: from mail-bw0-f54.google.com (mail-bw0-f54.google.com [209.85.214.54]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 95DDE8FC15; Tue, 25 Oct 2011 20:23:55 +0000 (UTC) Received: by bkbzt4 with SMTP id zt4so1021444bkb.13 for ; Tue, 25 Oct 2011 13:23:54 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=mime-version:sender:in-reply-to:references:date :x-google-sender-auth:message-id:subject:from:to:cc:content-type; bh=FyjqL8YI7OPXqAt4Tc0LsxMuUTD3G6DF5Iyrs9ZQd9M=; b=te8QumCCsM6jbhOqityfBtacKaS66kVyQjPqBofVfwNXJ8R8eLo8xvEVGG977a5Kut OOogquX2X7gZUZdUQVi7hmNTkLuXR142khVG9L9EywxUCPFndAVUC1F8lWyxcoJlTVlR FHZNKRCH2sZruWjqiaulLx1qPVBeASI6JHITA= MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.204.50.88 with SMTP id y24mr22127349bkf.53.1319574234557; Tue, 25 Oct 2011 13:23:54 -0700 (PDT) Sender: crodr001@gmail.com Received: by 10.204.39.12 with HTTP; Tue, 25 Oct 2011 13:23:53 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <4EA71713.3020404@FreeBSD.org> References: <20111020114844.GK59810@albert.catwhisker.org> <20111020122121.GL59810@albert.catwhisker.org> <201110211636.05917.jhb@freebsd.org> <20111025140000.GA8559@albert.catwhisker.org> <4EA71713.3020404@FreeBSD.org> Date: Tue, 25 Oct 2011 13:23:53 -0700 X-Google-Sender-Auth: jcrSj7wLUYgu4NGo1njs4bscdS0 Message-ID: From: Craig Rodrigues To: Doug Barton Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Cc: freebsd-current@freebsd.org Subject: Re: sys/conf/newvers.sh vs. subversion-1.7 X-BeenThere: freebsd-current@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Discussions about the use of FreeBSD-current List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 25 Oct 2011 20:23:56 -0000 On Tue, Oct 25, 2011 at 1:07 PM, Doug Barton wrote: > > I didn't "disagree" with you. I pointed out that there is absolutely no > reason to run 2 separate commands. To put it more bluntly, I pointed out > why your suggestion is a bad idea. Hmmm, sounds like a disagreement to me. I have read your concerns, but I don't fully understand why invoking "svn info ${SRCDIR}/sys", ignoring the output of "svn info", and then just checking its return status is a bad idea. Using "svnversion" further down in the script if "svn info" succeeds is all that I was recommending. Anyways, I am fine with the patch which you propose. The only possible issue could be in future, if svn switches from using decimal revision numbers to numbers which are in hexadecimal, base64, etc. However, that is not currently the case, and if it does happen in future, we can change the script accordingly. -- Craig Rodrigues rodrigc@crodrigues.org